Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (CB)]

Risking my life slightly, I wish to intervene. The noble Lord has made a lot of statements about the damage done either within the regimes run by the Gazan authorities—Hamas—or as a result of war. I have been to Gaza and the West Bank quite a few times, sometimes when there has been a reasonable peace and the people have been able to get on with their lives. During those periods, the pollution of water and of the sea and the problems of sewage were monumental. This is not something to do with the war, the wars, or the tumult from invasions; it is actually that the status quo in Gaza is appalling. It was not just me who said this. I seem to remember that a former Prime Minister, who is now the Foreign Secretary, described Gaza as an “open-air prison”. Does the noble Lord accept that there are some seriously long-entrenched problems of—

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, interventions should be brief and to the point. Can the noble Lord please get to the point?

[Lord Warner (CB)]

They are relatively brief, considering how long the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has been speaking, and some of the claims he has made.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

The noble Lord knows full well that this is an intervention, so can he please get to the point and his question of clarification?

[Lord Warner (CB)]

If the noble Lord had not jumped up I would have got to my question; it needed some context. Does the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, accept that there are some long-standing problems, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned, with the state of the environment in Gaza?

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

I am most grateful; I was actually just about to finish, but I will take into consideration what was said. I too have visited Gaza in happier times; some of the happy times I spent in the region were in Gaza by the Mediterranean Sea. The noble Lord is right: there have been some long-standing environmental problems in Gaza, which have been caused largely by Hamas. Let me give the noble Lord just one example. Hamas refused to co-operate with Israel on a desalination plant. Hamas could have had a desalination plant, which would have provided lots of fresh water, but it did not want it because it does not want to see ordinary Gazan citizens enjoy their life. Hamas wants them to be continuously in a state of disruption.

The final point I was making was that not every public body would have the benefit of the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, nor would it necessarily have someone else to offer a balance to what he said, so I think that decisions regarding Israel are better taken by the Government.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that interventions should be brief and about clarification on a technical point.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, can I ask the Minister whether it is the intention of this Bill to stop disinvestment in oil and gas companies associated with a particular country or territory?

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel proud, honoured and thankful to have been present in your Lordships’ Chamber to hear the powerful and informed speeches from my noble friends Lord Boateng and Lord Hain, and the powerful and forensic speeches from my noble friends Lady Chapman of Darlington and Lord Wood of Anfield.

I intend to devote my limited time to drawing your Lordships’ attention to a few specific provisions in the Bill and arguments about them, in opposition to it. I start by drawing your Lordships’ attention to remarks that were made at the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place. In rebutting the critics of the Bill, Michael Gove suggested—and this was deliberately calculated—that the central question for every Member of that Chamber was

“whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 591.]

This is not merely a false dichotomy but an extremely irresponsible piece of rhetorical manoeuvring. I am not surprised by it. By implication, it condemns opponents or even critical friends of the Bill as anti-Semitic. It seems ironic, to say the least, that in moving legislation purportedly designed to ease community and cultural divisions in this country, the Secretary of State chose to frame the debate in such inflammatory terms. For my part, I know not only that every Member of your Lordships’ House abhors anti-Semitism but that we are all conscious of the very specific and insidious ways in which it can creep into public discourse. We will do everything that we can to prevent that.

We were also told during those proceedings—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for drawing our attention to this—that the Bill fulfils a 2019 manifesto commitment. Leaving aside the question of how far the writ of that manifesto can seriously be expected to extend, given that it was the product of neither this Prime Minister nor his immediate predecessor, it is worth looking at, as was encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, how that commitment was framed and to what extent the Bill we are considering today reflects it.

The noble Lord read out the relevant passages, so I will not repeat them, but there are a number of aspects that are interesting in relation to the Bill. For example, there is no manifesto commitment to legislation that singles out protection of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is anomalous for three reasons. First, I fear that singling out Israel and the OPT in such a way is counterproductive. If I seriously believed that the actions of local authorities or other public bodies were compromising the coherence of British foreign policy—and sometimes I beg for the coherence of British foreign policy—I would have greater sympathy for this Bill.

With this in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister, whom I respect immensely, and she knows this, would outline a few cases that support that contention—where international perceptions of our foreign policy have been distorted or compromised, or where local authorities or other public bodies have acted in a way that courts serious confusion at an international level because of behaviour that is identified in the Bill. There must be data to support legislation that has such implications for the way in which we live. We have to justify the sweeping powers contained in the Bill, and this data must be shown to us before the conclusion of our deliberations on it.

Secondly, the more extreme elements of the BDS movement argue that Israel is too often held unjustifiably exempt from criticism and that the actions of the Israeli Government do not receive appropriate scrutiny. Surely by naming only Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Bill we will not defang those who make such criticisms but give them further ammunition for such assertions. This is of particular importance to Clauses 1 and 4.

Clause 1 prohibits action that a “reasonable observer” would conclude is motivated by “political or moral disapproval” of a foreign Government. It strikes me that the words “reasonable observer” are doing a great deal of heavy lifting here and that we are merely opening ourselves up to legal challenges based on contending subjectivities. Given the historical complexity, emotional depth and diplomatic ambiguity that attend any discussion of Israel, Palestine and their relationship, who is to decide what constitutes the position of a disinterested, reasonable observer? The last couple of years have shown me that, on this issue, in this country, there is no such thing.

Of even greater concern is Clause 4. As we have heard from other noble Lords, this provision does not merely debar a public body from expressing its intention to act in a contrary manner to this Bill but in addition—God forbid—prevents them expressing how they might wish to have acted were the legislation not in force. I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to present even a hypothetical case for where this provision may prevent serious harm to the coherence of UK foreign policy. In asking that, I do not contend that we have not seen cases where councils have made declarations supporting anti-Israel boycotts that they had no intention of implementing but that were none the less opposed by local Jewish groups. But I do not believe that these cases, however regrettable and ill-conceived, justify such sweeping measures to curtail free speech, nor that they in any serious manner compromise the wider unity and coherence of our foreign policy. It must be pretty fragile if they do.

A final anomaly to mention is a further consequence of Clause 4. In what circumstances is a decision-maker, or one who may influence a decision-maker, under the terms of this Bill speaking in a private capacity or as part of a public body? If the leader of a council spoke in the council chamber expressing their disapproval of Israeli actions but prefaced these remarks with an acknowledgement that such views were privately held and siloed from decision-making, would this exempt them from these provisions? Answering in the other place, the Minister sought to square this circle by saying that

“the simplest way to express that is that if an individual is speaking on their own behalf, they are speaking as a private individual. However, if I say that I am speaking on behalf of my university or my local authority, then I speak on the behalf of a public body”.—[Official Report, Commons, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill Committee, 12/9/23; cols. 155-56.]

While that clarification was no doubt tremendously insightful, I am sceptical that such a simplistic definition would survive contact with reality, never mind the courts. For these reasons, I believe that Clause 4 should simply be removed from the Bill.

Talking about contact with reality, noble Lords heard, in the opening sentences of his introducing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, or the Advocate-General for Scotland, say:

“I am speaking to the House today as a member of the Government for the Bill, not in my formal law officer capacity”.—[Official Report, 29/1/24; col. 1003]


The man is only in the Government because he is a law officer. The Advocate-General for Scotland position had to be filled, and he came from the Scottish Bar to fill it. He is only in the Government as a law officer. If noble Lords want to see the degree to which that survived reality, they can look at the rest of the debate and at how confused everybody in this House was by those remarks from the noble and learned Lord as to who he was talking for.

This Bill may be well-intentioned—I am sceptical about that—but it contains sufficient ambiguities and contradictions to risk deepening existing fractures and creating new contentions in relation to freedom of speech. For those reasons I will be seeking, at the very least, to support critical amendments as it moves through your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a wonderful debate, but the advisory speaking time is seven minutes. I am looking forward to seeing all noble Lords again in Committee, so please try to keep to seven minutes. Some of your Lordships were up at midnight, so we are hoping for a reasonable finish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill could not have come to our House at a more tragic or inappropriate time. We debate it as the death toll in Israel and Palestine has passed 30,000, when more than 100 Israeli hostages remain in captivity, when more than 17,000 children in Gaza have no living parent, when most of Gaza is now uninhabitable and when Israel tragically finds itself before the ICJ defending claims of genocide—and here at home we have seen a rise in anti-Jewish, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism.

We debate the Bill at a time when diplomacy has failed, and when the UK and the US find ourselves increasingly frustrated by the leadership both in Israel and in Gaza, neither of which appear to be partners for peace nor part of the solution. That is why more than ever we need civil society in Israel and Palestine and here in the UK to step up and shape the future of both countries. That must include the ability to use other levers of persuasion, to leverage contracts, seats at the table and ESG goals in the private and public sector as a force for achieving good, as defined in international law, UN resolutions and international human rights frameworks.

I welcome the Government’s position on this in recent times. I welcome the last Foreign Secretary’s decision not to engage with extremist Israeli politicians, such as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, which was an important message of disengagement and boycott. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to ban extremist settlers from travelling to the UK; it was an important move and a message on sanctions. I also welcome the FCDO’s continued advice, which is an important message on investment and disinvestment:

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied … since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law … There are … clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity”.


Such activities

“entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory … UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice”.

That is clear on both the legal and the reputational risks.

There have been many opinions in this Second Reading, but I hope the following can be supported by all in this House: Israel has a right to exist; it should do so within the 1967 borders; lands outside those borders, including the West Bank, east Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights, are Occupied Territories; Palestine has a right to exist; settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law; and we, along with others, should be working towards bringing an end to the occupation and towards the creation of two states, Israel and Palestine, both of them secure, viable as territories and sharing Jerusalem as their capital. Any group, boycott movement or individual which does not support these UK positions is rightly seen as part of the problem. Any movement that tries to leverage public funds to cut across these positions is quite rightly criticised.

Israel should not be held to a higher standard than any other country, but it must also not enjoy impunity in ways that others do not. It should be subject to the same rules and standards to which we hold the rest of the world—no higher or lower. However, this Bill does not say that. It says that the rules simply do not apply to Israel. The Bill does not help bring about peace in Israel and Palestine or support UK foreign policy in achieving its clearly stated goals, nor does it add to collaborative civil society or interfaith work in the UK, and it certainly does not enhance community cohesion. It does exactly the opposite. That is why it makes no sense when tested against historic British principles and values as we understand them, as well as Conservative values.

Sadly, this Bill is a mirror of laws introduced in other parts of the world, mainly in the United States at state level—the culmination of decades of campaigning and a concerted effort by successive Israeli Governments. This is not unusual. Many states, through pressure, lobbying, withholding trade, et cetera, try to persuade us to create a climate in our countries where criticism of them is curtailed at best and silenced at worst. I experienced this at first hand with a number of states during my time at the Foreign Office. We stood firm against it then and we should do so now.

This is an ideological Bill by—dare I say it—an ideological Secretary of State. A clumsy offering to an ideological section of Israeli political opinion, it is part of a well-documented and well-publicised wider international movement started by the extreme right wing, with groups such as the Israel Allies Foundation and others leading the charge, presenting legislators around the world with template Bills to introduce domestic legislation. Some of it is at the behest of Israeli embassies in countries, as was said in evidence in the US at the Georgia Governmental Affairs Committee. Adopted by numerous states across the United States, it is now being spread across Europe. As Prime Minister Netanyahu bragged on Twitter in February 2020:

“Whoever boycotts us will be boycotted … In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states, which determine that strong action is to be taken against whoever tries to boycott Israel”.


We must resist this. The current Israeli Government’s agenda of silencing criticism of them, including clamping down on Israeli citizens in Israel and Jewish diaspora groups elsewhere and jamming the levers of accountability, is dangerous. It is played out in the US, where, at its worst, it means that American citizens cannot take up some employment and service contracts without signing a “no boycott of Israel” clause first.

This Bill cuts across UK foreign and domestic policy, the Conservative Party’s commitment to localism and our commitment to freedom of speech. It will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, including legislation introduced in the university sector. It cuts across British Jewish opinion, being opposed by Jewish youth organisations such as the Union of Jewish Students and Jewish human rights groups, writers and activists. It rides roughshod over years of ESG progress, ignores internal FCDO lawyers’ advice, breaches our commitment to UN Security Council resolutions, flies in the face of our business and human rights commitments, introduced by a Conservative Government led by the then Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and launched by the then Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Hague, and it opens up an array of questions about financial decision-making, including on pensions investments and liability for any losses made.

I finish by quoting Jonathan Freedland, who has written that

“this is a bad bill—bad for Britain and bad especially for British Jews, including those who adamantly oppose BDS and its campaign to ostracise Israel … this is a bad bill, an attempt by the Conservatives to pose as the Jews’ best friends after the angst of the Corbyn years. If it is meant as some kind of gift, we should not accept it. It’s not just wrong in principle—it spells big trouble”.

I sincerely hope that this is not what we are doing. It would be deeply disturbing if we were politically playing fast and loose on such an important and sensitive issue.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

I remind noble Lords of the seven-minute time limit.

Industrial Strategy

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insight and remarks in this important debate. I welcome their views, especially from the engineers in this House, on how the Government can best ensure clear direction as we drive towards economic growth and progress. In recognising its importance, so too should we recognise that different approaches are favoured by different countries, depending on what works for each economic context. Each has benefits, of course, but this Government favour a more targeted approach to industrial policy, focused on a set of clear priorities.

If I may, I will answer directly the noble Lords, Lord Watson, Lord Mountevans, Lord Davies and Lord McNicol, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Blake. Industrial strategy is a philosophy that is very much bandied about; we are not in favour of such things. It is favoured by a command-and-control approach to economics that is particularly well loved by large countries such as the US, China, India and, in the EU, Germany and France. Our approach—our plan for growth—is that ideologically, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, as a small country we do not try to pick individual winners, as many noble Lords have said. Instead, we invest behind clusters of excellence. As a small country, we will never match the pure dollar muscle of the US, China, India or the EU. But we can be nimble, smart, proactive, entrepreneurial and open as a country to doing business.

First, I thought I should consider where the UK sits in the global economy. The latest official figures from the IMF show that the UK is the sixth-largest economy in the world and fourth in the G7, behind the US, Japan and Germany. Since 2010, the UK has seen the third-highest rate of growth in the G7—faster than Japan, Germany, France and Italy—and the IMF projects the UK to have the third-fastest cumulative growth in the G7 over the period 2024-28. Indeed, the ONS has revised up its earlier assessments of GDP, showing that we surpassed pre-pandemic levels of GDP by the end of 2021, while PWC’s economic outlook states on growth that

“the UK will … outperform France, Japan and Germany with real GDP around 2.7% higher in 2024 on average relative to 2019 levels.”

The UK was also the fifth-biggest exporter in the world in 2022 and achieved £870 billion of exports in the 12 months to November 2023. We are the second-largest exporter of financial services globally and our service exports to the EU are now at a record high, reaching £169 billion in the 12 months to September 2023, with key sectors such as professional business services and telecoms, computer and information services driving growth.

We also perform strongly on innovation. The recent WIPO Global Innovation Index 2023 shows that the UK economy is more innovative than our European neighbours such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, and technology powerhouses such as Israel, Japan and South Korea. Indeed, we have the second highest number of Nobel prize-winners in the world, above Germany, France, Sweden and Japan.

From a labour market perspective, according to the new ONS experimental series, the number of people in employment is now at 33 million. With an unemployment rate of 4.2% in the three months to August 2022, our unemployment rate hit its lowest point in nearly 50 years. While we are by no means complacent, we are pleased that the latest estimate from the ONS shows that the UK’s inactivity rate has fallen since its record high in September 2022.

Brexit is also offering great opportunities to the UK. Because of Brexit, the UK now has more trade agreements in effect than any other sovereign independent country in the world. We have secured trade agreements with 73 countries, plus our comprehensive deal with the EU. We have also been able to negotiate brand new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, creating opportunities for British businesses to break into new markets by eliminating tariffs on 100% of UK exports and securing unprecedented access for the UK’s world-class services industry. We have also signed the accession protocol to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This brings new opportunities for UK businesses, with 99% of current UK goods exports eligible for zero tariffs in dynamic economies across the Asia-Pacific, as well as the reduction of other barriers to trade across four continents.

We will leverage our strong global economic position to drive forward growth. Our approach is not to pick individual winners; instead, we invest behind clusters of excellence. The Government are therefore continuing to deliver an ambitious plan for growth and prosperity, as set out in the Autumn Statement. At that time, the Chancellor outlined the Government’s plan to unlock growth and productivity, laying out 110 growth measures, including removing red tape, speeding up access to the national grid, supporting entrepreneurs raising capital, unlocking foreign direct investment, and cutting business taxes.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about reliance on the single market. It is clear that delivering growth across the whole of the UK is a top government priority, and the Government have identified five key growth sectors for the UK. The first is advanced manufacturing, with an aim to make the UK the best place in the world to start, scale up and invest in manufacturing, as outlined in the Advanced Manufacturing Plan. The second sector is green industries, in line with our commitment to achieve net zero by 2050. Thirdly, as outlined in our Life Sciences Vision, are the life sciences, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. The fourth and fifth are the creative industries, in line with the creative industries sector vision, and digital technology, as outlined in the Government’s digital strategy. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for his suggestion of removing all subsidies, but the Government are keen to support those five key growth sectors.

First, on advanced manufacturing, we published our Advanced Manufacturing Plan and the UK’s first ever battery strategy in the autumn. This includes a £4.5 billion package of funding to 2030, tax reliefs, and business environment measures aimed at making the UK the best place to start, scale up and invest in manufacturing. As part of this, the Government are working to drive growth in the UK’s automotive industry with a £2 billion support package, giving long-term certainty to industry to continue to invest in UK manufacture of zero-emission vehicles, batteries and supply chains. The Government have also committed an additional £975 million to the aerospace industry through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme to help secure the UK’s role as a hub for the next generation of ultra-efficient aircraft and wings.

We are also helping small and medium manufacturers to adopt digital technologies by extending the reach of the Made Smarter programme. Our approach here is already working, with recent successes including: Tata Group’s announcement of a new gigafactory that will produce 40 gigawatt hours of batteries per year; Nissan’s £2 billion investment in Sunderland to produce two new electric models; and Boeing’s £80 million investment in South Yorkshire’s advanced manufacturing investment zone.

Secondly, on green industries, the Chancellor and Energy Security Secretary have already announced £960 million for a green industries growth accelerator, which will drive forward advanced manufacturing capacity in key net-zero sectors—including offshore wind networks; carbon capture, usage and storage; hydrogen; and nuclear —to support the expansion of resilient, homegrown, clean energy supply chains across the UK.

This builds on our existing plans to speed up grid connections and make reforms to the planning system, making sure that the UK has the right conditions for further investment and growth. As a result of the UK’s global leadership in clean technologies, including the flagship contracts for difference scheme and the £20 billion recently committed to develop carbon capture, usage and storage, the UK has attracted £200 billion since 2010. A further £100 billion is expected by 2030, which will support up to 480,000 skilled jobs across the country.

On life sciences, our 10-year strategy, developed jointly with the NHS and industry, focuses on creating a business environment in which the UK can maintain a global advantage in areas such as genomics and health data. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, for raising these important points and for everything he does in this sector. It will help build resilience for future health emergencies and capitalise on the UK’s R&D strengths. The Chancellor announced a £520 million life sciences support package at the Autumn Statement. This builds on our existing £650 million war chest announced in May last year, designed to fire up the UK’s life sciences sector.

Moving on to the creative industries, it is evident that we are world leaders. Indeed, the sector grew at over one and a half times the rate of the wider economy between 2010 and 2019. But we want to go further. In June 2023, we published a sector vision that set ambitions to grow the creative industries sector by £50 billion and deliver a creative careers promise to support a million more jobs by 2030. This included £77 million in new government spending, bringing the total announced since the 2021 spending review to £310 million.

Finally, on digital, the UK continues to lead the European tech ecosystem, with over 150 unicorns—tech companies valued at over $1 billion. That is more than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined. The overall value of the UK tech sector reached $1.1 trillion in 2023, up from $640 billion in 2012, making us the third country in the world to pass the $1 trillion milestone, after the US and China. We are also playing a world-leading role in developing technologies of the future, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, ensuring that the UK is at the forefront of shaping how technology transforms lives for the better.

Our approach is working. At November’s Global Investment Summit, the Government announced nearly £30 billion in private investment commitments, backing some of the fastest growing and most innovative sectors in the UK, including projects in tech, the life sciences, infrastructure, housing and renewable energy. Our visions for the key sectors identified by the Chancellor are further supported by our export strategy, which aims to support business to access export opportunities, and our clear investor road maps for hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and automotive industries, which help business to support government priorities.

The Department for Business and Trade continues to deliver a wide range of business support schemes, with over 40 offers that help businesses start, grow and export. This includes the work of UK Export Finance, which champions SMEs by unlocking finance for viable exporters, helping to make global markets accessible. In the 2022-23 financial year alone, UK Export Finance delivered £6.5 billion in new direct support through loans, guarantees and insurance policies, supporting 55,000 UK jobs. This included direct product support to 251 companies, of which 84% are SMEs and 82% are based outside London. As we move forward, we will continually improve our offer to help businesses across the UK access the finance and support they need, improve their skills and remove barriers to export.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrington for his report on increasing foreign direct investment, which has been warmly received by the Government. We have already taken significant steps to improve our ability to attract the most strategically important investments to the UK over the last couple of years, including establishing the Office for Investment and ensuring that we focus on securing the highest-value and highest-impact investments. I reaffirm our commitment to the noble Lord that the Government continue to drive forward implementation of the recommendations in line with our response, and that the Department for Business and Trade and His Majesty’s Treasury are working jointly to deliver a clear cross-government approach to securing and retaining investments.

I will respond to some specific questions. On the support for Tata Steel employees, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that we are determined to secure a sustainable and competitive future for the UK steel sector. On 15 September 2023, we announced that Tata Steel is investing £1.25 billion, including a UK Government grant worth up to £500 million, in a new electric arc furnace. This will not only modernise production but ensure that steel-making in south Wales can continue for generations to come. Without this major investment, Port Talbot would be under serious threat and Tata Steel’s operation in the UK, which employs 8,000 people, would be at risk. This support is expected to save at least 5,000 jobs within the company.

My noble friend Lord Willetts and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about the industrial strategy shutdown. The Government decided that we would no longer monitor the impact of the former industrial strategy, following its transition to the plan for growth. We continue to engage closely with businesses across all sectors, representative organisations, trade associations and investors through dedicated forums such as the Prime Minister’s Business Council.

I have answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. Since the vision was first published, we have seen strong growth in the life sciences sector, which saw £24 billion in exports in 2022. As a result of this, the sector supports more than 300,000 jobs across the UK. We will continue supporting this important and innovative sector with a sector-specific approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked about the skills improvement plan. Skills are very important across all sectors. The Government support manufacturing through a high-quality skills offer, including our flagship apprenticeship programme, skills bootcamps and higher technical qualifications through institutes of technology delivering manufacturing skills in areas such as clean energy, renewable energy, industry and transport.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, our teams in the Department for Business and Trade work across government, with business and investors in all sectors to drive growth. Indeed, in the Autumn Statement, we focused on building a stronger and more resilient economy. The Chancellor set out a plan to unlock growth and productivity by working with business, investing £20 billion a year getting more people into work, increasing the working population of 29 million. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Mair, the Government support manufacturing and engineering through a high-quality skills offer, flagship apprenticeship programmes, skills bootcamps and technical qualifications through institutes of technology.

I conclude by grounding this debate in a higher purpose. The Government must always be focused on how to build prosperity for our country, our people and our communities. It is right, in the context of heightened global competition, that the UK must be smarter and more strategic by maintaining a highly attractive business environment, prioritising areas of strength and focusing efforts on the biggest growth opportunities. Through this approach, we can be more agile in response to change, and more effective at delivering economic growth and enabling everyone to participate in economic growth and prosperity. Under our vision for key growth sectors, the Government will continue to ensure we capitalise on our strong partnership with business and make the most of UK’s underlying economic advantages to keep the economy growing.

These clusters of excellence have the great benefit of being accessible in every part of the country, whether it be working to deliver space ports in Scotland; pioneering the development and commercialisation of semiconductors in Wales; supporting Northern Ireland’s dynamic and rapidly evolving aerospace ecosystem; building on Coventry and Warwickshire’s unique automotive supply chain to develop new enabling technologies for automotive transportation; continuing to capitalise on our thriving financial services capabilities in London; or building our offshore supply chains and gigafactory capabilities in the north-east. It is through our targeted approach towards our five key growth sectors that we can be more effective in delivering the direction for growth and prosperity in the UK. We continue to take the long-term decisions to deliver a transformational step change and strengthen the UK economy as a whole. It is this co-ordinated and targeted approach that will continue to boost investment and deliver for the country: that is what is called levelling up.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all contributors to today’s debate. I thought it was both interesting and thoughtful and set the terms of future discussions that we will be having in the years ahead in this House. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield, for his considered contribution and welcome him to the House. Like him, I felt very nostalgic when he described working at No. 10. I have very fond memories of working there myself, and I know that his experience in the Treasury and in No. 10 will ensure that his contributions to this House really make a difference.

The nostalgia did not stop there. Is it really over 30 years since I shared a flat with my noble friend Lord McNicol and was so infuriated when I was reading the seminal work of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, Modern Conservatism, page by page? I am grateful and relieved, of course, that both of their thinking has moved on in the last 30 years, on the basis of their contributions today.

But the nostalgia does not stop even there. It is 40 years since I was appointed as the photocopy kid in the library at Labour Party headquarters, where the general secretary, my noble friend Lord Whitty, as he is now, used to tell me about how he worked for the Ministry of Technology under Harold Wilson—we all know that Harold knew how to back a winner and was very good at industrial strategies.

Then it reminded me that I am just getting on a bit. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Rooker reminded me in his contribution that he was the first MP I ever met, at the age of seven years old, which gives me the right to say to him that, this month, I believe, we will see his 50 years of unbroken service to the Houses of Parliament, both in the Commons and the Lords. It has been a genuine pleasure to see his contributions in both Houses during those years, and I am delighted and honoured that I can say that while wrapping up this debate.

An industrial strategy sets a longer-term higher order of direction for a country to take, perhaps even more than markets can predict, with goals like technological leadership or sustainable development. I was particularly entertained, amused and impressed by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I will just remind him by way of conclusion that the company of his fellow Hayekian anarchist, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, had a market capitalisation of $588 billion the last time I checked. He must be very grateful for the $465 million he got as a loan guarantee from the American Government because they had an industrial strategy. Would it not be great if we could have the same in this country?

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, please forgive me: I forgot to mention the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield. Coming from Manchester, he is most welcome to the House, and I look forward to working with him and finding out if he is a blue or a red.

Motion agreed.